New York going too far? - Page 2

David · David's Garage

I thought the most impressive part of the show was the video command center and radiation detection not the firepower.

They said lower Manhattan had almost 100% video coverage with software that could spot a bag left on a sidewalk or pull up all video of a person matching a discription.

looneybin · 09-26-2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeaksa

.50 cal bullets worked pretty well in WW2 and ever since this time. Granted it would take a pretty good shot but with someone trained and a bit of luck bet it could happen. I personally sitting in the cockpit would not want to be on the receiving end of a .50...

agreed, but in WW2 they were in a chase plane with 6 guns full auto - not a single shot bolt action

patssle · 09-26-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billh1963

Militarization of the police is never a good thing. Good thing they have strict gun control laws in NY so the law abiding sheeple can be better controlled.

And they can mace people then walk calmly away.

More police pigs.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

So it's okay for NY state to protect itself from foreign invasion/attack but it's not okay for the state of AZ to protect itself from foreign invasion/attack.

Makes perfect sense - got it.

ben parrish · 09-26-2011, 05:32 PM

My dad holding my aunts .50 cal....it's a cannon but NO WAY it is going to bring down a plane..the chief is woefully mistaken of what he has.

TimT · 09-26-2011, 05:49 PM

You guys must really suck at poker... Do you think the NYPD Chief is going to show all his cards? broadcast to the world all the tools at their disposal?

Kelly did not say how they can take planes down, just that they can.. some news orgs have trotted out some .50's Which NYPD has a few...

Its what is not mentioned that counts..

afterburn 549 · 09-26-2011, 05:59 PM

Maybe it is a 50 Browning machine gun...with tracers would d it..IF you knew it was coming

ted · ted's Garage

note do not violate his airspace.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben parrish

My dad holding my aunts .50 cal....it's a cannon but NO WAY it is going to bring down a plane..the chief is woefully mistaken of what he has.

When in the hell did you get a picture of me?

ben parrish · 09-26-2011, 06:30 PM

Dad, is that you?

GH85Carrera · GH85Carrera's Garage

I can't see them firing a 50 cal gun in the air. Every bullet will hit the ground. A rain of 50 cal bullets would really suck.

widgeon13 · 09-27-2011, 01:51 AM

If he's talking commercial flights I don't see how they could identify an aircraft and take it down (with any weapon) w/o most likely doing significant destruction on the ground and if he's talking private aircraft, you can fly under the floor of class B airspace and get close enough to any part of NYC (Manhattan) that there wouldn't be an opportunity to shoot down a plane before you knew what it's intentions were.

You can fly the Hudson river corridor under 1000 feet and it's uncontrolled airspace, just a couple of radio checkpoints along the way. What are they planning on doing, shoot every plane down that busts the Class B airspace.

Kelly's comments are comical. He's just talking NYC smack talk.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

If the thing is coming at you it doesn't much matter anyway. Instead of one big hunk of metal you'd (if you had a SAM battery or something else that really could take it out) you have a lot of little, flaming, jagged hunks of metal coming at you.

Obviously depends on stand-off range and whether or not you're right in line with the aircraft, but something to consider. Does NYC really want a bazillion hunks of flaming jagged metal raining down on midtown Manhattan?

Far more likely a scramble/intercept order would be given to ANG or USAF at the first sign of trouble and if the offending a/c got to within a predetermined distance of the city an AIM-9 or similar weapon would be deployed to destroy it over the water or over a less populated area.

afterburn 549 · 09-27-2011, 03:07 AM

I would imagine the Air force would be scrambled...they were for the twin towers..they just did not know what to do once there..they observed

widgeon13 · 09-27-2011, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

I would imagine the Air force would be scrambled...they were for the twin towers..they just did not know what to do once there..they observed

They also didn't have any ordinance, just training rounds.

afterburn 549 · 09-27-2011, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by widgeon13

They also didn't have any ordinance, just training rounds.

WOW..That was a wast of time ! Money, fuel, Komokozi Pilots?

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Yea I'd heard that too - different story entirely for Flight 93, but I won't get into that on here as I might get all the tin-foil hat types coming out of the woodwork.

widgeon13 · 09-27-2011, 04:46 AM

The kamikaze thing would have been a personal decision. It was not commanded to
my knowledge.

slakjaw · 09-27-2011, 07:23 AM

OK you guys, I am confused here. it seems like we should be more concerned with some terrorist shooting at a plane.

ted · ted's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by slakjaw

OK you guys, I am confused here. it seems like we should be more concerned with some terrorist shooting at a plane.

the boots on the ground rx'd indoc years ago for manpads.
Man-portable air-defense systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia